Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 25, 2013 3:38pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: This is Spinal Tap

Already wrapped up here it seems; have to agree, Keith by a mile or so...however, two quibbles. I recognize they are somewhat separate from the question about "which keyboard player?" but...

First: Donna. Bleech. Penalty box for that contribution.

Second: Pig's band; from start to...well, okay--he didn't finish. But you get the idea.

Is Pink Floyd Syd's creation? Of course...did they do some respectable things after his removal? No, not really (well, okay, I have to concede it's just me; most would argue that like the DEAD post-Pig, PF went on to greatness post-Syd).

As I've blathered on about so often before, and Ghost can attest, when my brothers saw them all thru 66, and 67, in which Midnight Hr and Lovelight were the MAIN events, it was described as a band with a blues tilt and greasy little biker dude as front man, not that far from how Big Brother was characterized as Joplin's backup band.

Seriously; they thought Moby Grape could all play better, esp in the "pop" domain, and that Quicksilver could defn jam better, and that Airplane (esp Marty) could sing better, blah, blah, blah...But the DEAD initially captured the blues-esque dance band niche (big eh? ahem...dunno).

My only pt is to stress that for a few yrs at the outset, they really were his band, and that should perhaps count for something more...? Even if no one would pick him for his organ chops. Er...well, actually, I love some of his little back and forths w Jerry on the OOne in fall, 68 (guitar/organ lead tradeoffs).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Mar 25, 2013 11:17pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: This is Spinal Tap

Actually, my vote would probably be for Pigpen, since most of the time (after '68) he wouldn't play, thus giving me my beloved guitars-only Dead sound!
Also, in his non-keyboard role (songs & singing), he is miles ahead of the other keyboardists. What's the competition - Let Me Sing Your Blues Away? Samba in the Rain? Anything Brent ever wrote or opened his mouth on?

Phil said once in 1970, "Pigpen plays a little organ now and then, but we're trying to discourage him."

But okay, for an actual player, I'd go for Keith, no surprise there. Though recognizing that his musical contribution pretty much stopped in 1977.
One thing I like is his natural piano sound, which blends in so well. Of course, the rest of the Dead got sick of it, but that dominating synth/organ sound they had for the next 15 years is really not my flavor.

Weir was asked in April '72 about why Keith came onboard -
"We've always been looking for somebody, really. Pigpen's not really a virtuoso keyboard player - that's not exactly what he does with us. So Garcia suggested we give Keith a listen, and he sounded good to everybody, so we just worked him in. It was short notice, but he was incredibly adept. He picked up on everything fast. That was one indication of how it worked good, and another was how well he could pick up on feelings that we played. I mean, he picked up on really minute subtle differences. Every one of us was mind-blown by how well he fitted into the whole musical scene we've conglomerated over the years."

Anyway, this is an interesting thread elsewhere discussing mostly Brent -
http://www.rukind.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=346&;t=10890

This post was modified by light into ashes on 2013-03-26 06:17:42

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 26, 2013 6:54am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: This is Spinal Tap

Yup; the comment about Keith being able to do everything so naturally reminds me of Jack Bruce (I know you'll understand) and Man.Man's comment about him showing up for a gig, his first, grabbing a bass, and playing the line for ea and every song without having known which was coming, or even having heard them before, remarking afterward, "...the bass lines were self-evident" or some such...

I don't even know what that really means, but it on the face of it, it seems so gosh-darn impressive. Of course, Keith could've had some of that from him having heard/practiced/etc, but isn't the storyline that he DIDN'T do that? IE, prior to the incident Bob describes?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Mar 26, 2013 7:07am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: This is Spinal Tap

Not wishing to detract in any way from your tale spinning, but when did Jack Bruce play with Man? I don't recall that.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 27, 2013 10:26am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: This is Spinal Tap

Sorry Rob--all this thread bumping got me confused!!!

It was just prior to CREAM, in vid on the origins of the band, MMann is interviewed, clearly smitten with JB...maybe he just stood in for someone in a studio? Like you, I don't recall any "real" productions with him and the MM folks.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Mar 27, 2013 10:56am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: This is Spinal Tap

Ahhh... Manfred Mann, with two 'n's! - curse you and your confounded contractions! I thought you were referring to the Welsh band Man (with one 'n'), who you may recall John Cipollina played with briefly back in, I think, 1975.

As you were!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 27, 2013 1:15pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: This is Spinal Tap

Oh my gosh--yes, you know me, the reason spell checking was invented...hereabouts, what with the ever-pressing need to post ad nauseum (ahem; well, a personal obsession, no doubt), I stopped thinking about spelling in 07 or so...and w names, it really helps me save time as I can NEVER recall subtle diff's along such lines ("Mann" vs "...man", blah, blah, blah).

;)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: robthewordsmith Date: Mar 27, 2013 1:24pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: This is Spinal Tap

I'll believe you, thousands wouldn't...

:-)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cosmicharIie Date: Mar 26, 2013 3:28am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: This is Spinal Tap

your link fell victim to the dreaded semicolon ;;; -
(between the & and t). I don't know why this happens, but here's the link >>

http://tinyurl.com/cwogk5a

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jerlouvis Date: Mar 26, 2013 10:35am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: This is Spinal Tap

If 70'-71' prior to Keith's inclusion was the direction the band continued in I don't think they would have achieved the level of success and longevity that they did,for the most part through August in 71' they seemed to be a fairly straight ahead,kind of sloppy rock band with shitty vocals and that does not seem to be a surefire formula for success.

I can't say to what end the limited role the organ played in the sound and direction of the band in 70'-71' or the addition of the piano in October 71' actually had,but if they stayed the course of 70'-71' model I think their core fan base would have drifted and I don't think that band would have satisfied Jerry's creative nature for much longer.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Mar 26, 2013 11:29am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: This is Spinal Tap

Actually, I'm not sure how much the band's sound & style affected their fan base, which proved resilient & ever-growing in the face of constant changes in both sound & style. It's possible nothing could make their core fan base drift away! (Actually a lot of early '60s fans did lose interest after Pigpen left & Keith was added, feeling the band now sucked.)

To an early-era fan like me, of course, it looks like the worse this band got, the more successful they got. Through much of the '80s their shows were mostly "fairly straight ahead, kind of sloppy rock with shitty vocals," albeit with some weirdness or jam interludes, and the audience kept growing. Their biggest success came with that garbage In The Dark album; and in the '90s they were packing more fans than could even see them, and (compared to earlier) they were just awful.

So I don't think any keyboardist really made any difference in this trajectory. Although a lot of Brent-era fans did bond with his sound & what he added; and the band's sound in general changed quite a bit in that era and became more like big tinkly "stadium rock," which must have helped their success.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jerlouvis Date: Mar 26, 2013 12:29pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: This is Spinal Tap

After Keith joined going forward the band added a bunch of new material spanning a variety of styles and also returned to the more challenging material with a new outlook and vigor,plus Pigpen's role was greatly reduced and it became Jerry's band which would be more conducive to wide spread success than a white blues singer led band.People can say all they want that it was Pig's band in his era,but I can't possibly believe that Lovelight,King Bee or whatever Pigpen blues/r+b numbers that I skip over when listening to shows were the main draw for the band as opposed to Dark Star,Other One and all the other Garcia/Weir material that it is in actuality the bulk of the bands repertoire.So the "fans" that left when Keith joined were seemingly Pigpen fans because if they thought the band now sucked I can't say they ever had a real grasp on the music,did they think Dark Star and the non-Pig material sucked in 69' or did it just suck when they added a piano.

My original point was that I don't know how influential the keyboardist seat was,but the way history transpired after adding Keith the band created a new performance model with the first set being rock and roll,country,blues and ballads and the second set a mix of the first set style with some long improvisational pieces thrown in the mix.This formula I believe is responsible for the bands longevity and wide spread popularity.It was a something for everybody type of deal,band members included.As for their success from Brent's time onward it was a combination of myth,only thing like it and the party/drug atmosphere surrounding the shows that drew people into a straight ahead,shitty rock show with vocals growing worse by the year with Brent yelling at you added to the mix.Also the hopes of schmucks like me that magically they could call up some of their old school mojo and blow our minds once again,sadly far and in between doesn't even seem to cover that.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Mar 27, 2013 12:47am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: This is Spinal Tap

The people who lost interest after Pigpen died - as you say, some were just Pigpen fans & preferred Lovelights to Dark Stars. Some didn't like the piano/Donna/the new, softer type songs - or, more in general, the band's loss of energy as the music got more laid-back & subtle in the early '70s.
Then, also important, there was the change of vibe at the shows - something which doesn't come across on tape, but in the '60s most people at Dead shows tended to be hardcore fans, but by '71 lots of people were discovering them & shows were getting more crowded with "rock & roll yahoos," while at the same time the band was also getting more professional, less acid-testy in the way they played. So Marty Weinberg, for instance, lost interest around then since he felt the shows were getting too professional & predictable.

You mention a couple good reasons for their increasing success - one, the variety of new songs added in the '70s. I think this is probably more important than "the formula," just the fact that a Dead show was like a variety show where most people could find something to like.
And two, you didn't know what they would play, so musically each show was like a roll of the dice - and the next one might be "the one." Extremely important in keeping people coming back over & over again, no matter how dire the band got!
And, of course, the audience which was its own show aside from whatever the band did. I'm not sure the band had to do anything in the last 20 years except just show up; the unique show atmosphere they'd started took on its own life.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 27, 2013 10:20am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: This is Spinal Tap

Absolutely! It's the energy that's different in the 68/74 comparison...they just sound too soft and subtle and refined, and lack real punch.

Hard to describe, but we felt it very distinctly at the time...among our group seeing and critiquing them at the time, the music types (ie, those in bands) always defended their right to evolve, and to improve (I always acknowledged their play might have improved, but I insist vocals go down hill after 75 or so), arguing with me that the 77-79 sound was an improvement, but only in some technical sense, not gut level for me...

The eleven seems to me to still represent a pinnacle of musician ship though I have no idea how hard this or that sound is to achieve, etc.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jerlouvis Date: Mar 27, 2013 10:16am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: This is Spinal Tap

I can understand some hardcore fans being disappointed with the new direction the band took in 72' with Keith and Donna and the new material/format because it was considerably different from 67' through mid 69',but if you were still going in 70' it wasn't drastically different in terms of types of music or venues and I doubt if there was a large turn over in the type of people in the crowd.1971 was an anomaly and I don't see how a fan would have had any idea what direction the music was going to take.Although I can see where the crowd might have been undergoing an early version of the "touch head" phenomenon in 71'.As for the professional and predictable aspects their sets could not have been more predictable than 68'-69' at least in late 69' they started to add a bunch of material and mix up the way some of the older stuff was presented,for the acid -testy aspect I guess you had to be there.

What I'm getting at is if you really like their music I can't see how 72' style Dead is so far removed from 68' style Dead that you would no longer want to listen or go.I think at the very least 68'-74' would have a similar appeal,understanding that the music in some ways was very different.I was a staunch early era fan when I started going in 78' and while a little delusional still thought they could pull off music in the GD tradition.

Variety was what I was eluding to in the format comment,different types of music mixed up in a way as to create a certain type of flow to please the crowd and band alike.Not knowing what they were going to play is more myth than fact,within reason you could guess the opener or the ballad,rocker,blues or country slots,and as time went on the second sets became ridiculously predictable as the tour played out,what lent an air of anything could happen was clever use of the "break out",they would pullout Comes a Time or St. Stephen and and then you would hope for others or just to catch the latest break out and this would also create a sense of anticipation from song to song at a show or show to show on the tour.Around 82' or 83' I started to get the feeling that the music was becoming less important and understood by the crowd and and the band could just show up.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Mar 27, 2013 2:14pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: This is Spinal Tap

I guess if you were following lots of shows on a tour, you could predict what the next setlist might bring (I forgot about that) - and for sure you'd know "the format" (jam>drums>space>ballad>rocker, etc). But there was still some unpredictability about what songs would come up, combined with your hopes that it might be certain favored songs...

It's true, Dead shows were never more predictable than in late '68/early '69. Maybe they just felt more chaotic to people who were there & didn't know the Dead's regular "format" of the time. ("Didn't this song start an hour ago?")
By 'acid-testy' aspect, part of that I think is the feeling that the band is not separate from the crowd, that everyone's joined together in making the music happen. As venues & crowds got bigger, I gather there was more of a feeling of separation or distance from the band.
Also, late-'60s concert-goers sometimes mention the unpredictable aspect of seeing how the band would get it together on any particular night - would the jams find new zones & soar? or would the band fall flat? In reviews there are often references to the band struggling with the improv or searching for the right connection, something that's harder to tell on tape. Once the band were playing more reliably consistent shows in the '70s, this aspect might have diminished.

I think there's a pretty big difference in feel between just '70 and '72, let alone earlier/later years - but then, I tend to focus on microscopic differences between years.
People at the time definitely noticed that some songs, like Viola Lee, had disappeared, and you can hear lots of forlorn people calling for "Alligator" or "Stephen" well after they'd expired.
But it's true a lot of the material is still the same, and lots of the fans were probably still the same too - I'd guess only a fraction of the "fans" dropped away.
But, looking at lots of reviews of the time, I can't help but notice how many times I see "they're not like they used to be," and often not approving. There was sometimes shock from people who'd worn out their Anthem or Live/Dead albums, then they came to a show and got a light country-rock outfit. (And maybe there's always a "they were better a few years ago" bias!)
Then again, historically we see that the Dead also picked up a lot of steady fans BECAUSE of their constant changes in style, and keeping things new. So, going in the '70s, you might come to expect that they'd do something different this year than last.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jerlouvis Date: Mar 27, 2013 7:59pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: This is Spinal Tap

If you were paying attention you were very rarely surprised,there was no feeling of anything is possible,but more of a good it's Stella,not Black Peter than I wonder what it's going to be.

Not having gone to any early era shows I can't speak to the vibe of what the crowd was like or what it felt like to listen and watch the band,but I can't say I put much stock in what I've heard and read from folks who did.I'm of the opinion that the music we have on tape is a good enough representation of that performance,I don't need stories from a sketchy source or to have been there first hand to grasp the music.

I find there are differences between each year through 79' and big differences between 70' and 72',but my thinking is if you really like to hear Jerry,Phil,Bob and Billy play music together there is enough commonality from 68'-74' to find something to like from each year and your reaction wouldn't be they suck now because it's not as "energetic" or it's too country,etcetera.I don't get how the Anthem or Live/Dead fans would have been shocked to hear the band had changed some since the bands most popular records Workingman's and American Beauty had to radio staples at the time.I think you hit it on the head with "they were better a few years ago" theory.I can see people bemoaning the loss of material they really liked as a reason for losing interest,but in that time span they didn't shelve that much stuff outside of the few you mentioned.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Mar 27, 2013 3:40pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: This is Spinal Tap

"...looking at lots of reviews of the time, I can't help but notice how many times I see "they're not like they used to be," and often not approving. There was sometimes shock from people who'd worn out their Anthem or Live/Dead albums, then they came to a show and got a light country-rock outfit. (And maybe there's always a "they were better a few years ago" bias!)"

That's me in a nutshell; as I've made clear, I did still considered them THE best thing since sliced bread, so this was along the lines of what we do here (since we love them more than anyone else it gives us the right to be brutally honest).

But, yes, we kept thinking that these changes weren't always for the better, and that some of it was "oh, it's the jazz influence like WoftheFlood", but some was, "hmmm, maybe they just can't manifest that level of intensity anymore..." as I've mentioned prior.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jerlouvis Date: Mar 25, 2013 4:39pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: This is Spinal Tap

Nice to see you checking in with some musical commentary WT and you made a salient point about the early years.I have no use for Pigpen,but have to add that on occasion he added some very interesting,unique organ parts throughout his tenure with the band.